Yuk called OBS on catcher

[IRISHMAFIA]

Originally Posted by Skahtboi

The items highlighted makes me think you didn't have OBS. As has already been pointed out by other posters, just being in the base path is not, of itself, OBS.

You say the runner had to alter her path. At what point? How far away was she?

Based on your description, several umpires are having trouble buying OBS themselves.

I agree, this doesn't read like OBS. Reminds me of the umpires who would call OBS the moment a runner rounded 3rd and stopped. Claim was the catcher was standing on the 3B side of the plate and the runner shouldn't have to risk a possible collusion.

Yuk is right

[roadking]

Originally Posted by IRISHMAFIA

I agree, this doesn't read like OBS. Reminds me of the umpires who would call OBS the moment a runner rounded 3rd and stopped. Claim was the catcher was standing on the 3B side of the plate and the runner shouldn't have to risk a possible collusion.

Yuk is right

Again I didn't like my call, I'm just opening it up for discussion because at the administration level at our state meetings they have deemed this OBS and for the obvious reasons to avoid crashes.
I'm umpire that has played and coached the game for many years, so I beleive I have a good feel for the game.
The call had no bearing on the outcome of the game, I probably would not make the call otherwise.
The question I have for you guys that don't make assumptions about other umpires, is at what point do you deem the defensive player that is standing in the base path of the runner and not receiving the ball is to have impeded the progress of the runner?
My initial thought when I signaled the OBS was the runner had to adjust from her original base path to wider angle.

[DaveASA/FED]

This is a judgement call and it is a HTBT call to really say if it was a correct call or an incorrect call. But what we have to judge is that the runner was impeded by a fielder without possession of the ball (only part that applies in your situation). What I think most of us are saying is from 30 feet away it's hard for us to invision that the runner was impeded.

You mentioned that you thought they altered their path to go wider than they were going to go and that's why you ruled OBS. I ask, did they do that because of the fielders location?? Or did they take a wider path because they saw a play developing and they were attempting to be in a position to avoid a tag? This is the real judgement part that we have to figure out a way to be more consistent on.

When they first changed the rule and took about to receive out of the rule there were a lot of umpires who ruled OBS as soon as they rounded 3B and F2 had a foot in front of the plate. This was an incorrect call obviously, there has to be some sign that the runner was impeded before we can rule obstruction.

I understand that your association is "harping" to call this and I AGREE 100% umpires need to call it when it happens!! But calling it when they really aren't impeded, is just as bad as not calling it when they are impeded!